Haryana

Ambala

CC/324/2016

Savneet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Aditya Verma

08 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                        Complaint No.324 of 2016

                                        Date of institution:-17.08.2018

                                        Date of decision: - 08.03.2018

Savneet Singh Sobti s/o Sh.Harmohinder Singh Sobti r/o 9, Golden Park, Near Dayal Bagh, Ambala Cantt. (HR.).

 

                                                           ...Complainant.

Versus

1.The New India Assurance Co.Limited Branch Office, 5406, 2^nd Floor Cross Roade-3, Punjab Mohalla, Ambala Cantt.

2.Sh.Raman Chattwal Surveyor through New India Assurance Company Limited Ambala Cantt. having office at 100 The Mall Ambala Cantt. (Haryana).

3.M/s Marsh India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. having registered office at 1201-2 Tower-2, One India Bulls Centre Jupiter Mills Compound, Sainapati Bapt Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013.

                                                            …Opposite parties.

4.Ambala Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. through its General Manager having his office at Baldev Nagar, Ambala City (Haryana).

                                                       

                                                             ..Performa respondent.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:     Sh.Dina Nath Arora, President. 

                   Sh.Pushpender Kumar, Member,              

                   MS.Anamika Gupta, Member.                  

               

Present: -  Sh.Aditya Verma, Advocate for complainant.

                Sh.Nikhlesh Bhagi, Advocate for opposite party                         Nos.1.

                OP Nos. 2 to 4 are exparte.

                               

Order

                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having insurance policy No.31040031150350004   valid upto 10.09.2016 issued by OP Nos. 1 to 3. The car of the complainant met with an accident on 10.07.2016 while he was coming back from Panjokhra Sahib Gurudwara. The car in question struck against a tree as a cow suddenly appeared on the road. The complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of performa respondent who intimated the Op No.1. On 12.07.2016 surveyor appointed by No.1 inspected the insured vehicle. The cost of the parts which were to be replaced was estimated around Rs.75,000/- and this fact was also communicated to Op No.1. The complainant sent many emails to Op No.1 but to no avail and the vehicle was lying in the workshop of performa respondent since 11.07.2016 without any repair. After going through the estimates Sh.Raman Chatwal firstly delayed the sanction and accent to the performa respondent for necessary changes but lateron flatly denied to sanction the genuine claim of the complainant and he insisted the performa respondent to repair the parts without changing the same despite the fact that damaged parts such as steering assembly etc. cannot be repaired and necessarily required to be replaced once damaged. The spot survey was got done on 06.08.2016 whereas the accident had taken place on 10.07.2016. The policy in question was a dep-cap and cashless policy and the OP No.1 was bound to provide damages to the vehicle free of costs. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C6.

2.                     On notice Op No.1 appeared and filed its reply wherein several preliminary objections such as jurisdiction, estoppal, cause of action and maintainability etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that estimate of M/s Ambala Automobile was scrutinized and surveyor vide letter dated 11.07.2016 asked the complainant to comply with some formalities. On 14.07.2016 surveyor inspected the vehicle qua loss including supplementary estimated parts. The subframe fitted with control rms & Gear A steering removed from vehicle was produced for inspection to surveyor on 18.07.2016. Inspite of repeated demands the repairer had not provided copies of job card, inspection sheets and also denied to dismantle the Gear A Steering for its inspection and taking photographs. The officials of General Motors recommended the claim of stabilizer Assy and Lind Rod RH and according the Op No.1 a again got inspected the vehicle from Sh.Mahish K.Kureja who submitted his report dated 04.10.2016 and Op No.1 had approved the claim for Rs.87,700/- and paid the same to the repairer directly. The claim amount was disbursed immediately after receiving approval from General Motors as well as final bill from repairer but the complainant instead of waiting any response of manufacturer, surveyor report, filed the present complaint which shows that he wants to grab money from the OP No.1.  The Op No.1 is not deficient in providing service to the complainant and even not indulged in unfair trade practice. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP Nos. 2 to 4 did not appear before this Forum despite summons sent through registered post, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.10.2016. In evidence, the Op No.1 has tendered affidavits Annexure RX, Annexure RY and Annexure RZ besides documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R16. 

3.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties gone through the material available on the case file.

4.             By way of filing the present complaint on 17.08.2016 the complainant sought directions to sanction the claim raised by performa respondent in order to repair the damage vehicle alongwith rental car bills besides compensation on account of deficiency in service cost of litigation expenses.

5.             The Op No.1 in its reply has specifically mentioned that the amount of Rs.87700/- has already been paid to the repairer of the vehicle  as there was gape in the policy and the pre-inspection report was received from dealer on 19.10.2016 and prior to this the Op No.1 was not in a position to settle the claim. Undisputedly, the claim amount to the tune of Rs.87700/- has already been disbursed to the repairer but that too has been made during the pendency of this complaint. In an email dated 28.07.2016 Annexure C2 sent by the complainant to the OP No.1 it has been mentioned that the complainant is facing problem without his vehicle for the last 17 days without any repair as the accident had taken place on 10.07.2016. The complainant has stressed that the surveyors appointed by the insurance company have wrongly deducted the value of the some part vehicle which was to be payable. This plea is not tenable because the complainant has neither challenged the report of surveyor nor moved any application to get them cross-examined on the point of deduction of some parts of the damaged vehicle. In the present case it is not the case of the Op No.1 that there was delayed intimation but despite that the Op No.1 has not taken appropriate steps to settle the claim of the complainant which was lateron on settled around more than 4 months later without the fault on the part of the complainant. It is not disputed that the policy in question was cash less policy and the complainant had lodged the claim with the insurance company on 11.07.2016 but the OP No.1 insurance company has firstly appointed the surveyor on 11.07.2016 and further appointed second surveyor on 01.08.2016 and finally keeping in view the reports of the surveyor total amount of Rs.87700/- was paid to the repairer of the vehicle on account of damage to the insured vehicle.  No doubt before making of payment to the repairer by the Op No.1- insurance company the complainant has filed the present complaint which shows that he had been harassed by the Op No.1 insurance company and due to highhandedness on the part of the insurance company the complainant has to approach this Forum.  Moreover, it was for the insurance company to decide the claim within a period of one month but it cannot be done so. The Op No.1 has come with the plea that the payment was made keeping in view the reports of both the surveyor but there is nothing on the file to show that what lacuna the Op No.1 had wanted to fill by appointing second surveyor. Perusal of Annexure R2 and Annexure R3 shows that some documents were demanded by the Op No.1 from the complainant but it appears that both these letters have been written in order to avoid the claim of the complainant despite the fact that it was a cashless policy. Moreover, appointment of surveyor whether first time or second time is none of the business of the complainant because it is the internal matter of the insurance company because in the present case the complainant had purchased cashless policy and this fact has also been mentioned by the complainant in para No.8 of the complaint but the Op No.1 has not specifically replied this point which shows admission on the part of the insurance company, therefore, the claim should have been settled as early as possible but the payment was made to the repairer only on 30.11.2016 i.e. after more than four months which is clear cut breach of the terms and condition of sub Clauses 5 of the Regulation No.9.  On this point reliance can  be taken from case law titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar Kalia 2013 (2) CLT 417 (PB), claim not decided/repudiated within 30 days from the date of receipt of the survey report as per sub Clauses 5 of the Regulation No.9 Deficiency in service by insurer.

                Keeping in view the above discussion it is clear that the Op No.1 is deficient in making the payment to the repairer after a period of more than 4 months but Op No.4/perform respondent has not come before this Forum and remained exparte, therefore, it is not established on the case file that what harm the complainant has suffer due to delayed payment to the Op No.4 by the Op No.1. Though the complainant has suffer mental agony and harassment due to the act and conduct of the Op No.1 because the payment was made after filing of the present complaint, therefore, we assess the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the Op No.1 to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment etc. only. The complainant has claimed amount of Rs.20800/- and Rs.10400/- spent by him during the period when the vehicle remained parked in Op No.4 unrepaired as per Annexure C6 and Annexure C7 but these documents are not believable as these documents appear to be prepared by showing exaggerated amount, therefore, it would be appropriate if we assess the compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for depriving of using the vehicle during the time when it remained unrepaired to be paid by Op No.1. Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed. Order be complied within 30 days. Copy of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 08.03.2018

 

 

                                                               

PUSHPENDER KUMAR      ANAMIKA GUPTA        D.N. ARORA MEMBER                                MEMBER                        PRESIDENT